var bibbase_data = {"data":"\"Loading..\"\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n
\n generated by\n \n \"bibbase.org\"\n\n \n
\n \n\n
\n\n \n\n\n
\n\n Excellent! Next you can\n create a new website with this list, or\n embed it in an existing web page by copying & pasting\n any of the following snippets.\n\n
\n JavaScript\n (easiest)\n
\n \n <script src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FG35TYMUY%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DhGXLq241MCQA3ow7rlTIV2gY%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1&jsonp=1\"></script>\n \n
\n\n PHP\n
\n \n <?php\n $contents = file_get_contents(\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FG35TYMUY%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DhGXLq241MCQA3ow7rlTIV2gY%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1\");\n print_r($contents);\n ?>\n \n
\n\n iFrame\n (not recommended)\n
\n \n <iframe src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FG35TYMUY%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DhGXLq241MCQA3ow7rlTIV2gY%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1\"></iframe>\n \n
\n\n

\n For more details see the documention.\n

\n
\n
\n\n
\n\n This is a preview! To use this list on your own web site\n or create a new web site from it,\n create a free account. The file will be added\n and you will be able to edit it in the File Manager.\n We will show you instructions once you've created your account.\n
\n\n
\n\n

To the site owner:

\n\n

Action required! Mendeley is changing its\n API. In order to keep using Mendeley with BibBase past April\n 14th, you need to:\n

    \n
  1. renew the authorization for BibBase on Mendeley, and
  2. \n
  3. update the BibBase URL\n in your page the same way you did when you initially set up\n this page.\n
  4. \n
\n

\n\n

\n \n \n Fix it now\n

\n
\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n  \n 2021\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Don’t make a hash of it! A thematic review of the literature relating to outcomes of cannabis regulatory change.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Oldfield, K.; Evans, S.; Braithwaite, I.; and Newton-Howes, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy,1–12. June 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Don’tPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{oldfield_dont_2021,\n\ttitle = {Don’t make a hash of it! {A} thematic review of the literature relating to outcomes of cannabis regulatory change},\n\tissn = {0968-7637, 1465-3370},\n\turl = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687637.2021.1901855},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/09687637.2021.1901855},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-06-08},\n\tjournal = {Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy},\n\tauthor = {Oldfield, Karen and Evans, Sean and Braithwaite, Irene and Newton-Howes, Giles},\n\tmonth = jun,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {1--12},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A systematic review of the label accuracy of cannabinoid-based products in regulated markets: is what’s on the label what’s in the product?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Oldfield, K.; Ryan, J.; Doppen, M.; Kung, S.; Braithwaite, I.; and Newton-Howes, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Australasian Psychiatry, 29(1): 88–96. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"APaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{oldfield_systematic_2021,\n\ttitle = {A systematic review of the label accuracy of cannabinoid-based products in regulated markets: is what’s on the label what’s in the product?},\n\tvolume = {29},\n\tissn = {1039-8562, 1440-1665},\n\tshorttitle = {A systematic review of the label accuracy of cannabinoid-based products in regulated markets},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1039856220965334},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/1039856220965334},\n\tabstract = {Objectives:\n              To review the literature regarding label accuracy and contamination of medical cannabinoid-based products.\n            \n            \n              Methods:\n              A systematic review with meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131565).\n            \n            \n              Results:\n              Five studies reported label accuracy data ranging between 17\\% and 86\\%. Four studies reported contaminants, including pesticides, solvents and AB-FUBINACA. Meta-analysis was limited to the proportion of pesticide-contaminated samples found in two studies (0.25 (95\\% CI [0.10, 0.40])) and displayed significant heterogeneity.\n            \n            \n              Conclusions:\n              Label inaccuracies and contaminants are found across a spectrum of cannabinoid-based products. The review highlights the paucity and heterogeneity of research relating to cannabinoid-based products in light of changing global legislation. Further robust research is required to support ongoing pharmacovigilance and patient safety.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {Australasian Psychiatry},\n\tauthor = {Oldfield, Karen and Ryan, John and Doppen, Marjan and Kung, Stacey and Braithwaite, Irene and Newton-Howes, Giles},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {88--96},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Objectives: To review the literature regarding label accuracy and contamination of medical cannabinoid-based products. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131565). Results: Five studies reported label accuracy data ranging between 17% and 86%. Four studies reported contaminants, including pesticides, solvents and AB-FUBINACA. Meta-analysis was limited to the proportion of pesticide-contaminated samples found in two studies (0.25 (95% CI [0.10, 0.40])) and displayed significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: Label inaccuracies and contaminants are found across a spectrum of cannabinoid-based products. The review highlights the paucity and heterogeneity of research relating to cannabinoid-based products in light of changing global legislation. Further robust research is required to support ongoing pharmacovigilance and patient safety.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2020\n \n \n (6)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Experiences, patient interactions and knowledge regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in a cohort of New Zealand doctors in an oncology setting.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Oldfield, K.; Eathorne, A.; Tewhaiti-Smith, J.; Beasley, R.; Semprini, A.; and Braithwaite, I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Postgraduate Medical Journal,postgradmedj–2020–139013. November 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Experiences,Paper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{oldfield_experiences_2020,\n\ttitle = {Experiences, patient interactions and knowledge regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in a cohort of {New} {Zealand} doctors in an oncology setting},\n\tissn = {0032-5473, 1469-0756},\n\turl = {https://pmj.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139013},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139013},\n\tabstract = {Purpose of Study\n              To explore the experiences, patient interactions and knowledge regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in New Zealand doctors in an oncology setting.\n            \n            \n              Study Design\n              An observational cross-sectional survey undertaken between November 2019 and January 2020 across four secondary-care hospital oncology departments within New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin). Participants were a convenience sample of doctors; consultants, registrars, medical officers of special status and house surgeons working in oncology departments. Of 53 individuals approached, 45 participated (85\\% Response Rate). The primary outcome was reporteddoctor-patient interactions. Secondary outcomes included knowledge of cannabis-based products, their efficacy, prescribing regulations and educational access.\n            \n            \n              Results\n              Of 44 doctors, 37 (84\\%, 95\\% CI: 70 to 93) reported patient requests to prescribe cannabis-based products and 43 (98\\%, 95\\% CI: 88 to 100) reported patients using illicit cannabis for medical symptoms. Primary request reasons were pain, nausea/vomiting and cancer treatment. 33/45 (73\\%, 95\\% CI: 58 to 85) cited knowledge of at least one cannabis-based product and 27/45 (60\\%, 95\\% CI: 44 to 74) indicated at least one condition that had evidence of efficacy. 36/44 (82\\%, 95\\% CI: 67 to 92) expressed future prescribing concerns but all were willing to use a cannabis-based product developed with traditional medical provenance.\n            \n            \n              Conclusion\n              In the oncology setting, patients are asking doctors about symptomatic and curative treatment with cannabis-based products. Doctors are not biased against the use of products showing medical provenance; however, NZ-specific clinical and regulatory guidelines are essential to support patient discussions and appropriate prescribing.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-06-08},\n\tjournal = {Postgraduate Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Oldfield, Karen and Eathorne, Allie and Tewhaiti-Smith, Jordan and Beasley, Richard and Semprini, Alex and Braithwaite, Irene},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpages = {postgradmedj--2020--139013},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Purpose of Study To explore the experiences, patient interactions and knowledge regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in New Zealand doctors in an oncology setting. Study Design An observational cross-sectional survey undertaken between November 2019 and January 2020 across four secondary-care hospital oncology departments within New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin). Participants were a convenience sample of doctors; consultants, registrars, medical officers of special status and house surgeons working in oncology departments. Of 53 individuals approached, 45 participated (85% Response Rate). The primary outcome was reporteddoctor-patient interactions. Secondary outcomes included knowledge of cannabis-based products, their efficacy, prescribing regulations and educational access. Results Of 44 doctors, 37 (84%, 95% CI: 70 to 93) reported patient requests to prescribe cannabis-based products and 43 (98%, 95% CI: 88 to 100) reported patients using illicit cannabis for medical symptoms. Primary request reasons were pain, nausea/vomiting and cancer treatment. 33/45 (73%, 95% CI: 58 to 85) cited knowledge of at least one cannabis-based product and 27/45 (60%, 95% CI: 44 to 74) indicated at least one condition that had evidence of efficacy. 36/44 (82%, 95% CI: 67 to 92) expressed future prescribing concerns but all were willing to use a cannabis-based product developed with traditional medical provenance. Conclusion In the oncology setting, patients are asking doctors about symptomatic and curative treatment with cannabis-based products. Doctors are not biased against the use of products showing medical provenance; however, NZ-specific clinical and regulatory guidelines are essential to support patient discussions and appropriate prescribing.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Knowledge and perspectives about the use of cannabis as a medicine: a mixed methods observational study in a cohort of New Zealand general practice patients.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Oldfield, K.; Eathorne, A.; Maijers, I.; Beasley, R.; Semprini, A.; and Braithwaite, I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The New Zealand Medical Journal, 133(1522): 96–111. September 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{oldfield_knowledge_2020,\n\ttitle = {Knowledge and perspectives about the use of cannabis as a medicine: a mixed methods observational study in a cohort of {New} {Zealand} general practice patients},\n\tvolume = {133},\n\tissn = {1175-8716},\n\tshorttitle = {Knowledge and perspectives about the use of cannabis as a medicine},\n\tabstract = {AIM: To determine what patients presenting to general practice (GP) understand about the use of cannabis as a medicine, beliefs of how this may impact their medical conditions and interactions with doctors.\nMETHOD: An in-person survey of 134 GP patients from four GP practices throughout the North Island of New Zealand undertaken from November 2018 to October 2019.\nRESULTS: Fifty-five percent of the sample were female, with 40\\% of all participants aged 60 years plus. Ninety-one percent of participants indicated they would use a prescribed medicinal cannabis product while 45\\% reported they believed it may be of some benefit to their medical condition. Of those who believed it beneficial, 71\\% indicated they thought it useful for pain relief. Participants indicated comfort discussing medicinal cannabis use with GPs and specialists (92\\% respectively); however, less than 10\\% had done this.\nCONCLUSIONS: Just under half of patients surveyed believe that medicinal cannabis products may be helpful to their condition, and while the majority report willingness, few have discussed this with their GP or specialist. There is need for accessible, accurate information regarding the use of cannabis-based medicine for patients and doctors alike to guide the patient-doctor consultation and decrease barriers to open discussion.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1522},\n\tjournal = {The New Zealand Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Oldfield, Karen and Eathorne, Allie and Maijers, Ingrid and Beasley, Richard and Semprini, Alex and Braithwaite, Irene},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpmid = {32994620},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, General Practice, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Humans, Male, Medical Marijuana, Middle Aged, New Zealand, Pain Management, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Young Adult},\n\tpages = {96--111},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n AIM: To determine what patients presenting to general practice (GP) understand about the use of cannabis as a medicine, beliefs of how this may impact their medical conditions and interactions with doctors. METHOD: An in-person survey of 134 GP patients from four GP practices throughout the North Island of New Zealand undertaken from November 2018 to October 2019. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of the sample were female, with 40% of all participants aged 60 years plus. Ninety-one percent of participants indicated they would use a prescribed medicinal cannabis product while 45% reported they believed it may be of some benefit to their medical condition. Of those who believed it beneficial, 71% indicated they thought it useful for pain relief. Participants indicated comfort discussing medicinal cannabis use with GPs and specialists (92% respectively); however, less than 10% had done this. CONCLUSIONS: Just under half of patients surveyed believe that medicinal cannabis products may be helpful to their condition, and while the majority report willingness, few have discussed this with their GP or specialist. There is need for accessible, accurate information regarding the use of cannabis-based medicine for patients and doctors alike to guide the patient-doctor consultation and decrease barriers to open discussion.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Cannabinoids in the Treatment of Insomnia Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bhagavan, C.; Kung, S.; Doppen, M.; John, M.; Vakalalabure, I.; Oldfield, K.; Braithwaite, I.; and Newton-Howes, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n CNS Drugs, 34(12): 1217–1228. December 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"CannabinoidsPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{bhagavan_cannabinoids_2020,\n\ttitle = {Cannabinoids in the {Treatment} of {Insomnia} {Disorder}: {A} {Systematic} {Review} and {Meta}-{Analysis}},\n\tvolume = {34},\n\tissn = {1172-7047, 1179-1934},\n\tshorttitle = {Cannabinoids in the {Treatment} of {Insomnia} {Disorder}},\n\turl = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40263-020-00773-x},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s40263-020-00773-x},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {12},\n\turldate = {2021-05-07},\n\tjournal = {CNS Drugs},\n\tauthor = {Bhagavan, Chiranth and Kung, Stacey and Doppen, Marjan and John, Mary and Vakalalabure, Iva and Oldfield, Karen and Braithwaite, Irene and Newton-Howes, Giles},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpages = {1217--1228},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Medical cannabis: knowledge and expectations in a cohort of North Island New Zealand general practitioners.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Oldfield, K.; Braithwaite, I.; Beasley, R.; Eathorne, A.; Newton-Howes, G.; and Semprini, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The New Zealand Medical Journal, 133(1508): 12–28. 2020.\n Number: 1508\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{oldfield_medical_2020,\n\ttitle = {Medical cannabis: knowledge and expectations in a cohort of {North} {Island} {New} {Zealand} general practitioners},\n\tvolume = {133},\n\tissn = {1175-8716},\n\tshorttitle = {Medical cannabis},\n\tabstract = {AIM: To investigate GP knowledge of the use of cannabis as a medicine and its regulation in New Zealand.\nMETHOD: A convenience sample of GPs completed a questionnaire during continuing medical education sessions. Key domains investigated were: patient interactions around use of cannabis as a medicine; prescription facilitation and impediments; knowledge of evidence for and against the use of cannabis as a medicine; knowledge of the New Zealand regulatory processes and knowledge of pharmaceutical grade products. Questionnaires were administered between June and October 2018.\nRESULTS: There were 42/76 (55\\%) GPs who stated at least one patient had asked for a cannabis prescription for medical use in the last 12 months and 43/76 (57\\%) were aware of pharmaceutical grade preparations, the majority Sativex. There were 59/75 (79\\%) who expressed concerns about future prescribing; however, 63/75 (84\\%) indicated they would be 'somewhat' or 'very' likely to prescribe a PHARMAC-funded product with good evidence in specific conditions.\nCONCLUSION: Some GPs have concerns about prescribing medicinal cannabis. Due to regulatory restrictions, including no currently funded products, and uncertain scientific evidence of efficacy and safety, education programmes will be required to inform the medico-legal, evidential and practical elements of prescribing cannabis as a medicine.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1508},\n\tjournal = {The New Zealand Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Oldfield, Karen and Braithwaite, Irene and Beasley, Richard and Eathorne, Allie and Newton-Howes, Giles and Semprini, Alex},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpmid = {31945040},\n\tnote = {Number: 1508},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cannabis, Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, General Practitioners, Humans, Knowledge, Male, Medical Marijuana, Middle Aged, Motivation, New Zealand, Patient Safety, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome},\n\tpages = {12--28},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n AIM: To investigate GP knowledge of the use of cannabis as a medicine and its regulation in New Zealand. METHOD: A convenience sample of GPs completed a questionnaire during continuing medical education sessions. Key domains investigated were: patient interactions around use of cannabis as a medicine; prescription facilitation and impediments; knowledge of evidence for and against the use of cannabis as a medicine; knowledge of the New Zealand regulatory processes and knowledge of pharmaceutical grade products. Questionnaires were administered between June and October 2018. RESULTS: There were 42/76 (55%) GPs who stated at least one patient had asked for a cannabis prescription for medical use in the last 12 months and 43/76 (57%) were aware of pharmaceutical grade preparations, the majority Sativex. There were 59/75 (79%) who expressed concerns about future prescribing; however, 63/75 (84%) indicated they would be 'somewhat' or 'very' likely to prescribe a PHARMAC-funded product with good evidence in specific conditions. CONCLUSION: Some GPs have concerns about prescribing medicinal cannabis. Due to regulatory restrictions, including no currently funded products, and uncertain scientific evidence of efficacy and safety, education programmes will be required to inform the medico-legal, evidential and practical elements of prescribing cannabis as a medicine.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Cannabis-based medicinal products in arthritis, a painful conundrum.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Berg, M. V. d.; John, M.; Black, M.; Semprini, A.; Oldfield, K.; Glass, M.; and Braithwaite, I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The New Zealand Medical Journal, 133(1515): 35–45. May 2020.\n Number: 1515\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{berg_cannabis-based_2020,\n\ttitle = {Cannabis-based medicinal products in arthritis, a painful conundrum},\n\tvolume = {133},\n\tissn = {1175-8716},\n\tabstract = {AIMS: The changing medicolegal climate regarding the medicinal use of cannabinoids in New Zealand will increase the likelihood of patients consulting general practitioners (GPs) about these products. Arthritis is a common medical condition for which cannabis-based products are promoted and used; however, doctors' knowledge about the efficacy and safety of these products in the setting of arthritis may be limited.\nMETHODS: We undertook a rapid review of the medical literature on cannabis-based medicinal products in arthritis.\nRESULTS: Animal studies have identified endocannabinoid pathways in arthritis that are potentially amenable to interventions. One randomised placebo-controlled trial of Sativex® in adults with rheumatoid arthritis has shown some improvements in pain but not in comparison with a standardised pharmacological treatment regimen. Systematic reviews of cannabis-based products in arthritis have determined that there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend cannabis-based medicines for routine clinical use. There were five ongoing registered clinical trials of cannabis-based products in arthritis, the results of which are yet to be reported.\nCONCLUSIONS: While animal models have identified possible endocannabinoid pathways in arthritis, there is no clear evidence of benefit in humans or comparative efficacy with current treatments. At this stage, there is little evidence to support GPs prescribing cannabis-based medicinal products for arthritis.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1515},\n\tjournal = {The New Zealand Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Berg, Marthe Van den and John, Mary and Black, Melissa and Semprini, Alex and Oldfield, Karen and Glass, Michelle and Braithwaite, Irene},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpmid = {32438375},\n\tnote = {Number: 1515},\n\tpages = {35--45},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n AIMS: The changing medicolegal climate regarding the medicinal use of cannabinoids in New Zealand will increase the likelihood of patients consulting general practitioners (GPs) about these products. Arthritis is a common medical condition for which cannabis-based products are promoted and used; however, doctors' knowledge about the efficacy and safety of these products in the setting of arthritis may be limited. METHODS: We undertook a rapid review of the medical literature on cannabis-based medicinal products in arthritis. RESULTS: Animal studies have identified endocannabinoid pathways in arthritis that are potentially amenable to interventions. One randomised placebo-controlled trial of Sativex® in adults with rheumatoid arthritis has shown some improvements in pain but not in comparison with a standardised pharmacological treatment regimen. Systematic reviews of cannabis-based products in arthritis have determined that there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend cannabis-based medicines for routine clinical use. There were five ongoing registered clinical trials of cannabis-based products in arthritis, the results of which are yet to be reported. CONCLUSIONS: While animal models have identified possible endocannabinoid pathways in arthritis, there is no clear evidence of benefit in humans or comparative efficacy with current treatments. At this stage, there is little evidence to support GPs prescribing cannabis-based medicinal products for arthritis.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Medicinal applications of cannabis/cannabinoids.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Braithwaite, I.; Bhagavan, C.; Doppen, M.; Kung, S.; Oldfield, K.; and Newton-Howes, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Current Opinion in Psychology, 38: 1–10. April 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"MedicinalPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{braithwaite_medicinal_2020,\n\ttitle = {Medicinal applications of cannabis/cannabinoids},\n\tvolume = {38},\n\tissn = {2352250X},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352250X20300981},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.06.002},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2020-07-13},\n\tjournal = {Current Opinion in Psychology},\n\tauthor = {Braithwaite, Irene and Bhagavan, Chiranth and Doppen, Marjan and Kung, Stacey and Oldfield, Karen and Newton-Howes, Giles},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpages = {1--10},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2019\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Chemical and physical variations of cannabis smoke from a variety of cannabis samples in New Zealand.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Sheehan, T. J.; Hamnett, H. J.; Beasley, R.; and Fitzmaurice, P. S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Forensic Sciences Research, 4(2): 168–178. April 2019.\n Number: 2\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ChemicalPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{sheehan_chemical_2019,\n\ttitle = {Chemical and physical variations of cannabis smoke from a variety of cannabis samples in {New} {Zealand}},\n\tvolume = {4},\n\tissn = {2096-1790, 2471-1411},\n\turl = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20961790.2018.1445937},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/20961790.2018.1445937},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2020-08-23},\n\tjournal = {Forensic Sciences Research},\n\tauthor = {Sheehan, Thomas J. and Hamnett, Hilary J. and Beasley, Richard and Fitzmaurice, Paul S.},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tnote = {Number: 2},\n\tpages = {168--178},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Cannabis-based medicinal products and the role of the doctor: should we be cautious or cautiously optimistic?.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Braithwaite, I.; Newton-Howes, G.; Oldfield, K.; and Semprini, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The New Zealand Medical Journal, 132(1500): 82–88. 2019.\n Number: 1500\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{braithwaite_cannabis-based_2019,\n\ttitle = {Cannabis-based medicinal products and the role of the doctor: should we be cautious or cautiously optimistic?},\n\tvolume = {132},\n\tissn = {1175-8716},\n\tshorttitle = {Cannabis-based medicinal products and the role of the doctor},\n\tabstract = {With rapidly changing legislation designed to improve access to cannabis-based medicinal products, we assess the obligations of the law and professional bodies on the proposed prescribers of these products. We argue that the current legal and professional obligations may limit prescribing practices despite legislative change, and that without the usual licensing processes of Medsafe being applied to these products, prescribers and their professional bodies must engage in the process of change to ensure short- and long-term patient safety and to maintain professional standards.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1500},\n\tjournal = {The New Zealand Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Braithwaite, Irene and Newton-Howes, Giles and Oldfield, Karen and Semprini, Alex},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tpmid = {31415502},\n\tnote = {Number: 1500},\n\tkeywords = {Humans, Marijuana Use, Medical Marijuana, New Zealand, Patient Safety, Physician's Role, Physicians, Practice Patterns, Physicians'},\n\tpages = {82--88},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n With rapidly changing legislation designed to improve access to cannabis-based medicinal products, we assess the obligations of the law and professional bodies on the proposed prescribers of these products. We argue that the current legal and professional obligations may limit prescribing practices despite legislative change, and that without the usual licensing processes of Medsafe being applied to these products, prescribers and their professional bodies must engage in the process of change to ensure short- and long-term patient safety and to maintain professional standards.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2018\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Chemical and physical variations of cannabis smoke from a variety of cannabis samples in New Zealand.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Sheehan, T. J; Hamnett, H. J; Beasley, R.; and Fitzmaurice, P. S\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Forensic Sciences Research,1–11. 2018.\n Publisher: Taylor & Francis\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{sheehan_chemical_2018,\n\ttitle = {Chemical and physical variations of cannabis smoke from a variety of cannabis samples in {New} {Zealand}},\n\tissn = {2096-1790},\n\tjournal = {Forensic Sciences Research},\n\tauthor = {Sheehan, Thomas J and Hamnett, Hilary J and Beasley, Richard and Fitzmaurice, Paul S},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tnote = {Publisher: Taylor \\& Francis},\n\tpages = {1--11},\n}\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n
\n"}; document.write(bibbase_data.data);